American Nuclear SocietyFusion Energy Division

December 2009 Newsletter

Letter from the Chair Snead

New ANS “Fusion” Fellows Uckan

FED Slate of Candidates Najmabadi

19th ANS Topical Meeting on the Technology of Fusion Energy Najmabadi/Sharafat

Call for Nominations: ANS-FED Awards Morley

Fusion Award Recipients El-Guebaly

News from Fusion Science and Technology Journal Uckan

Ongoing Fusion Research:Recent Advances in High Temperature Superconductors Minervini

Highlights of US Fusion-Fission Hybrid Workshop Freidberg

International Activities: ITER Update Sauthoff

Report on IAEA Technical Meetings on“First Generation of Fusion Power Plants: Design andTechnology” and “Fusion Power Plant Safety” Mank/Kamendje

Letter from the Chair, Lance Snead, Materials Science and Technology Division,Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.

As the subject of this letter I would like to bring the Fusion Energy Division (FED)membership up to speed on some of the metrics for our division. I am also happy to doso as the previous Chairs have made our division look quite good. For those of you whoare not intimately plugged into the American Nuclear Society (ANS), the overall societymembership has been remarkably constant over the 2000 decade with total membershipof approximately 10,800. As can be seen from the figure below, the membership of theFED over that period has had a significant increase, for which the Division receives highmarks.

The ANS has recently invested great effort into evaluating the strength of each Divisionand has devised a set of metrics by which they can determine where improvements needto be made and which of the 22 Professional Divisions are becoming subcritical. For thiseffort, they are using a “Measures of Vitality System.” The vitality of the Fusion EnergyDivision is given in the color-coded figure below for calendar year 2008. Green is“good-above average”, white “average” and red “needs ANS attention.” As you see fromthe figure, the FED is largely green, and in fact is the only Division which has receivedno red marks. I will comment that it was clear that in the initial draft of the metrics theFED was not getting credit for much of the good work we were involved in such asmeeting participation, scholarships, etc. In any event, both the growing membership andthe best metrics in the society put us in a good position going forward.

Professional Division MetricsFusion Energy Vitality Measures – CY 2008

DivisionMeetings

DivisionGovernance

DivisionContributions

to Society

DivisionServices to

Membership

NationalMeeting

Participation2008 Embedded Topicalco-sponsor 1 plenary; 0

panel2008 Winter: 1 session / 0

panel

SuccessionPlanning

Included in 2004-08 Strategic Plan

ANS PositionStatements

12 Fusion Energy, Revised2008 (Active)

ProfessionalDevelopment

Established ProgramCommittee - 2006

P. Wilson on ANS Prof.Devel. Comm.; National

Ignition FacilityWorkshop at 2008

TOFE

Class IClass IITopicals

+25% attendance (135/200)15Th Topical: TOFE 2004

(142 full papers)18th Topical Mtg on

Technology of FusionEnergy

MembershipTrends

764/801 members +4.8% change2006

801/805 members +.5% change2007

805/827 members +2.7% change2008

Participationwith

OutsideProfessional

SocietiesFusion has liaison with IEEE

Publishes in other journals

Scholarships

No scholarship established;2008 contributed to ANS

NEED Scholarship

Class IIITopicals

(Embedded)

15th Fusion Topical - Nov02

17th Topical Mtg onTechnology of FusionEnergy (TOFE – Nov

2006) 157 full papers; 2008Embedded Topical co-

sponsor Nuclear Fuels –111 summaries

Communications2 newsletters in 2008

website updated in 2008

SocietyLeadership

4 of 4 PDC: 75% Exec CommAll NPC

Presentation to BoD June 2008

PeerRecognition/

AwardsEdward Teller

FED Awards (Achievement& Technical

Accomplishment)Best Student Paper Award

DivisionPlanning

2004-08 Strategic Plan submittedto PDC Chair

2006 Reviewed budgeting process

Non-MeetingPublications

Fusion Science & TechnologyJournal

StudentSupport

2008 Student Travel2008 Student Conference

Division’sCommitment to

YMGAppointed P. Calderoni,

Liaison

Currently, we are working on updating the FED Rules and Bylaws to comply with theoverall ANS goal of unifying the professional division bylaws. We are also going toexplore the possibility of starting a new student scholarship. Also, we will continue todiscuss the nomination of additional FED members to Fellow status. At present, of our827 members, 22 are Fellows of the society and an additional 16 are Emeritus Fellows.While this proportion of Fellows within the Division is consistent with the ANS as awhole, we have had relatively few Fellows over the past several years and overall, oursociety is heavy academically, which should naturally bias towards a greater proportionof Fellows.

I look forward to any input or suggestions you might have in any of these areas.

Slate of Candidates for 2010/2011 FED Executive Committee, FarrokhNajmabadi, Center for Energy Research, University of California-San Diego, La Jolla,CA.

Vice-Chair/Chair-Elect:  Minami Yoda (Georgia Tech)

Executive Committee:Mark Tillack (UCSD)Keith R. Rule (PPPL)Paul W. Humrickhouse (INL).

New ANS “Fusion” Fellows, Nermin A. Uckan, FS&T Editor, Oak Ridge NationalLaboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.

It is a pleasure to report that we have a new ANS “Fusion” Fellow added to the honorsrole: Dr. A. René Raffray. Congratulations.

René Raffray, ANS member for 8 years, was recognized as a Fellow of the AmericanNuclear Society during the ANS Winter Meeting in Washington, D.C., November 2009.

René Raffray has been a Research Scientist in the Mechanical and AerospaceEngineering Department and Center for Energy Research, University of California SanDiego. Recently, he joined the ITER Organization in Cadarache, France as the BlanketSection Leader, responsible for the design and procurement of the ITER blanket and firstwall.

René Raffray earned the highest grade of ANS membership “for his pioneeringcomputational modeling research that helped solve show-stopper issues for fusionchambers, including opening the IFE dry wall design window through inclusion of iontime of flight effects and use of nano-structured tungsten armor; and understanding thetritium behavior in ceramic breeder blankets.”

The election to the rank of Fellow within the ANS recognizes the contributions thatindividuals have made to the advancement of nuclear science and technology through theyears. Selection comes as a result of nomination by peers, careful review by the Honorsand Awards Committee, and election by the Society's Board of Directors. The list ofcurrent Fellows, nomination steps, guidelines, nomination forms can be found athttp://www.ans.org/honors/va-fellow.

FED has two dozen or so Fellows. FED Officers/Executive Committee has beenencouraging all FED members to actively engage in nominating deserving colleagues tothe fellowship grade. FED “red-team” Fellows will be happy to provide guidance andhelp review nomination packages. Please feel free to contact uckanna@ornl.gov forquestions.

19th ANS Topical Meeting on the Technology of Fusion Energy, FarrokhNajmabadi, University of California-San Diego, and Shahram Sharafat, University ofCalifornia-Los Angeles, CA.

Consistent with our practice of alternating Topical Meetings between “stand-alone” and“embedded”, the 19th

Topical Meeting on the Technology of Fusion Energy (TOFE) willbe held November 7 – 11, 2010 in Las Vegas, Nevada as an embedded meeting withinthe ANS Winter Meeting. Prof. Farrokh Najmabadi is the General Chair and Prof.Shahram Sharafat is the Technical Program Chair. The Technical Program Committee,along with the list of sessions, will be published soon. The meeting website,http://www.19tofe.com is under construction and will be available at the beginning of thenew year.

Plans are moving along nicely for the 19th TOFE. The meeting will be held at the Riviera

Hotel in Las Vegas. The hotel is located about 10 minutes from the McCarranInternational Airport and near world-class golf courses. It offers a perfect setting for theTOFE meeting with its 160,000 square foot Convention Center – a self-contained fullservice conference facility. The Top of the Riviera hotel offers sweeping vistas of the LasVegas Strip.

This is an exciting time for fusion technology due to the development of ITER and NIF.At the time of the meeting, it is expected that NIF will have demonstrated its firstbreakeven shots and the media will still be abuzz with excitement of fusion’s latestachievement. Therefore, we anticipate that the 19th TOFE will be very well attended.

The meeting will begin with a reception at the conference center on the evening ofSunday, November 7, 2010, and the technical program begins on Monday, November 8.The meeting banquet will be held on the afternoon of Wednesday, November 10, at 6PM. Technical sessions will resume on Thursday, November 11, and the conference willadjourn before noon that day. During the meeting banquet, the Honors and AwardsCommittee of the Fusion Energy Division (FED) of the American Nuclear Society (ANS)

will distribute awards for Outstanding Technical Accomplishment, OutstandingAchievement, and the Best Student Paper. Each award consists of a cash prize and aplaque. For details regarding nomination procedures please see the award article in thisnewsletter or refer to http://fed.ans.org/awards.shtml. To be eligible for the studentaward, students must be the lead author on a technical paper, must be enrolled in anundergraduate or graduate degree program, and must submit the full written paper beforethe meeting. The call for papers will go out before the end of this year (December 2009)and a fully functional meeting website will be available shortly thereafter.

Technical ProgramThe 19th

TOFE will be a three day meeting with plenary, oral, and poster sessions. Therewill be plenary papers, with a mix of invited and contributed oral papers, and asubstantial number of poster papers. We expect many fusion technology professionalsfrom the US and abroad to attend the 19th TOFE to share their recent results.

The overarching theme of the plenary talks is “Progress of Major Experiments and NextFacilities on the Pathway to DEMO” – ITER, NIF and other experimental machines:DIII-D, NSTX, JET, Tore Supra, KSTAR, EAST, etc. In addition, special sessions arebeing planned on various topics (e.g., ITER, Fusion Relevant Neutron Sources, Pathwaysto Demo, etc.).

TopicsThe scope of the TOFE meeting is to provide a forum for the discussion of new results infusion technology as they relate to present fusion research and to future fusion energyapplications. The list of session topics includes:

• Progress of major experiments – ITER, NIF and other experimental machine such as DIII-D, NSTX, JET, Tore Supra, KSTAR, EAST, etc.

• Materials and components test facilities• Alternate fusion concepts• Computational tools and validation experiments• Divertors and high heat flux components• Fabrication, assembly and maintenance• First walls, blankets, shields• Fuel handling and processing• IFE driver and chamber technology• IFE target design, fabrication and injection• Magnets• Materials development and modeling• Non-electric applications of fusion• Next step facilities and the Demo power plant• Nuclear analysis and experiments• Plasma diagnostics• Plasma engineering• Power conversion• Power plant studies and pathways to fusion energy• Safety and environment

Key DatesThe following key dates have been determined:

December 15, 2009 – First AnnouncementJanuary 15, 2010 – First Call for PapersFebruary 15, 2010 – Second Call for PapersMarch 15, 2010 – Third Call for PapersApril 1, 2010 – Abstracts Due.

We look forward to another highly successful TOFE meeting.

Call for Nominations, ANS-FED Awards, Neil B. Morley, University ofCalifornia-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.

The Honors and Awards Committee of FED/ANS is seeking nominations for FusionEnergy Division of ANS Awards:

1) Outstanding Achievement Awards: This award is for recognition of acontinued history of exemplary individual achievement requiring professionalexcellence and leadership of a high caliber in the fusion science andengineering area.

2) Technical Accomplishment Award: This award is for recognition of aspecific exemplary individual technical accomplishment requiringprofessional excellence and leadership of a high caliber in the fusion scienceand engineering area.

Detailed descriptions of the awards and past recipients can be found athttp://fed.ans.org/awards.shtml. Note that nominees will only be considered for theparticular award for which they are nominated, and that nominees from 2008 will beautomatically reconsidered.

Deadline for nominations is August 1, 2010 for the awards to be presented at the 19th

ANS Topical Meeting on the Technology of Fusion Energy, embedded in the ANSWinter Meeting and Nuclear Technology Expo to be held November 7-11, 2010 in LasVegas, Nevada.

Nominations can be made by individuals and submitted anytime to the FED Honors andAwards Committee Chair (N. Morley). Nomination package should include:

a) Nominee’s CVb) A description of exemplary achievement(s)c) Support letters (and/or co-signature on the nomination form)

Details are available at the URL provided above.

Please send nominations to:Neil B. Morley43-133 Engineering IV

Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, UCLALos Angeles, CA 90095-1597morley@fusion.ucla.edu

Electronic submission via email is encouraged.

An Outstanding Student Paper Award will also be given at the TOFE meeting; allindicated student papers will be automatically considered. Details will be forthcoming inconjunction with the meeting announcements.

Fusion Award Recipients, Laila El-Guebaly, Fusion Technology Institute,University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.

Fusion awards have been established to formally recognize outstanding contributions tofusion development made by members of the fusion community. The following awards(listed in alphabetical order) were available to the newsletter editor at the time ofpublishing this newsletter. We encourage all members of the fusion community to submitinformation on future honorees to the editor (elguebaly@engr.wisc.edu) to be included infuture issues. The ANS-FED officers and executive committee members congratulate thehonored recipients of the 2009 fusion awards on this well-deserved recognition and ourkudos to all of them.

APS AwardsProf. Miklos Porkolab, Director of the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center, has beenselected to receive the 2009 James Clerk Maxwell Prize by the American PhysicalSociety (APS). The prize was established to recognize outstanding contributions to thefield of plasma physics and honors Prof. Porkolab for pioneering investigations of linearand nonlinear plasma waves and wave-particle interactions; fundamental contributions tothe development of plasma heating, current drive and diagnostics; and leadership inpromoting plasma science education and domestic and international collaborations.

FPA Awards2009 Distinguished Career Award: Prof. Weston M. Stacey, Jr., Callaway Regent’sProfessor of Nuclear Engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology, has received thisaward for his decades of outstanding career contributions to fusion research anddevelopment, including his pioneering contributions to power-producing fusion reactordesigns, to the INTOR design which was a forerunner for ITER, and to conceptualdesigns of fusion-fission systems.2009 Leadership Award: Dr. G. S. Lee, President of the Korean National FusionResearch Institute (NFRI), has received this award for his leadership of the KSTARtokamak project, of Korean participation in the ITER project, and of the InternationalFusion Research Council (IFRC).2009 Excellence in Fusion Engineering Awards: Drs. Darren Garnier of ColumbiaUniversity and Jeff Latkowski are the recipients of theses awards. Dr. Garnier wasrecognized for the contributions and leadership he has provided for the design,

fabrication and operation of the Levitated Dipole Experiment (a joint Columbia-MITproject located at MIT) and his contributions to the diagnostics and control systems forthat experiment. Dr. Latkowski is cited for the contributions and leadership he hasprovided for the LIFE fusion-fission project, the NIF Final Safety Analysis, and to LLNLcontributions to the non-laser portions of the national High Average Power Laser (HAPL)program. IFSA AwardsDrs. Ed Moses (LLNL) and Ricardo Betti are the recipients of the 2009 Edward TellerMedal, sponsored by the American Nuclear Society.  The medals were presented at the 6th

International Conference on Inertial Fusion Sciences and Applications (IFSA) meeting inSan Francisco on September 10, 2009:  

• Dr. Moses was cited for his “leadership in the development and completion of theNational Ignition Facility” (NIF). As principal associate director for NIF andPhoton Science at Lawrence Livermore (LLNL), he has overseen the constructionof NIF, the world’s largest and most energetic laser, and is leading aninternational effort to perform the first ignition experiments on NIF in 2010.

• Prof. Betti was cited for his “seminal contributions to the theory of hydrodynamicinstabilities, implosion dynamics and thermonuclear ignition in inertialconfinement fusion.” A professor at the University of Rochester and director ofthe Fusion Science Center for Extreme States of Matter, Dr. Betti has devisednew ignition concepts and theoretical models for inertial fusion implosions andscaling laws for ignition. These scaling laws are the basis for present experimentson the OMEGA laser and future research on NIF.

MA-FNT AwardThe Miya-Abdou Fusion Nuclear Technology (MA-FNT) award was presented at theInternational Symposium on Fusion Nuclear Technology (ISFNT) in recognition ofoutstanding scientific contributions and leadership qualities of young researchers infusion nuclear science and technology. This year’s award was presented at ISFNT-9 (heldOctober 2009 in Dalian, China) to Dr. Koichiro Ezato of the Japan Atomic EnergyAgency (JAEA) in recognition of his contributions, especially in the area of ITERdivertor and international activities on plasma facing components. 

Nuclear Fusion AwardThe winner of the 2009 Nuclear Fusion Award is Steven A. Sabbagh et al. for theirpaper on “Resistive wall stabilized operation in rotating high beta NSTX plasmas.” Theauthors, working on the National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX), havedemonstrated the advantages of low aspect ratio geometry in accessing high toroidal andnormalized plasma beta. This is a landmark paper, which not only reports recordparameters of beta in a large spherical torus plasma, but also presents a thoroughinvestigation of the physics of Resistive Wall Mode (RWM) instability beyond the no-wall limit. The paper addresses an issue of critical importance, using a spherical torus,with direct relevance to conventional tokamaks.  The fusion power in the technologyphase of ITER will depend on the degree of RWM stabilization that can be achieved,which underlines the importance of the authors' contribution. The winning paper will be

freely available until the end of May 2010 athttp://herald.iop.org/nfaward/m26/ljc/131548/link/3083.

News from Fusion Science and Technology (FS&T) Journal, Nermin A.Uckan, FS&T Editor, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.

During the past 12 months (from October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2009), FS&Treceived a total of 253 manuscripts: 78 are from North America, 111 are from Asia, 62are from Europe (including Russia), and 2 are from Others. During this period, FS&Talso received 43 camera-ready papers from the 2008 Open Systems Conference(OS2008), published in FS&T Transactions. OS2008 papers are not included in papercounts.

The following dedicated issues have been published during the period 10/1/08 to 9/30/09:• ARIES Compact Stellarator Study – FS&T Oct. 2008• Selected full papers from EC-15 – FS&T Jan. 2009• Open Systems 2008 – FS&T Transactions Feb. 2009• Selected papers from 18th IFE Target Fabrication – FS&T Apr./May 2009• TOFE08 Proceedings (parts 1 & 2) – FS&T Jul./Aug. 2009• Tore Supra Tokamak (Cadarache, France) – FS&T Oct. 2009

The following issues are confirmed for 2010:• LHD Stellarator (JA) 10th Anniversary Special Issue – FS&T double issues• 9th Carolus Magnus Summer School 2009 Proceedings – FS&T Transactions• Selected papers from APS-DPP 2009 Mini-Conf. on Mirrors –FS&T regular issue• Selected papers from 6th Fusion Data Processing, VV & Analysis – FS&T regular issue

The following issues are planned for 2011 and 2012:• Selected papers from 2010 EC-16 – FS&T regular issue(s) (2011)• JT-60U (update of JT-60 Special 2002) – FS&T regular issue (2011)• 19th TOFE 2010 Proceedings – FS&T double issues (2011)• 9th Tritium 2010 Proceedings – FS&T double issues (2011)• Open Systems 2010 Proceedings – FS&T Transactions (2011)• Cluster of fusion papers from ICFRM 2011 – FS&T regular issue (2012)• ICENES 2011 Proceedings – FS&T Transactions (2012)• 10th Carolus Magnus Summer School 2011 – FS&T Transactions (2012)

Please check for your library subscription. Electronic access to FS&T is available from1997-to-current. Tables of contents and abstracts of papers can be accessed athttp://www.ans.org/pubs/journals/fst/. Individual and library subscribers can access thefull text articles at http://epubs.ans.org/. Please send your comments on FS&T contentsand coverage as well as suggestions for potential future topical areas that are timely andof interest to fst@ans.org.

ONGOING FUSION RESEARCH:

Recent Advances in High Temperature Superconductors, Joseph V.Minervini, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

IntroductionMagnet systems are the ultimate enabling technology for magnetic confinement fusiondevices. Powerful magnetic fields are required for confinement of the plasma, and,depending on the magnetic configuration, steady state and/or pulsed magnetic fields arerequired for plasma initiation, ohmic heating, inductive current drive, plasma shaping,equilibrium, and stability control. Almost all design concepts for power producingcommercial fusion reactors rely on superconducting magnets for efficient and reliableproduction of these magnetic fields. Several fusion machines that use superconductingmagnets are either operational or under construction in many countries throughout theworld. These magnet systems were built exclusively with so-called low temperaturesuperconductors (LTS). These are made from either the ductile alloy, NbTi or the brittleintermetallic compound, Nb3Sn. These superconducting materials have been developedand optimized over the past four decades, and are optimized to near their ultimate limitsof performance.

The new high temperature superconductor (HTS) materials potentially offer arevolutionary path forward in the design of magnetic fusion devices that could lead tovery high performance in compact devices, with simpler maintenance methods andenhanced reliability. These materials are already sufficiently advanced to consider fornext-step fusion applications. The game-changing opportunities offered by these types ofsuperconductors include the ability to optimize the magnetic fusion device for very highfield plasma performance and/or to operate the device at relatively high cryogenictemperatures. They can be used with any magnetic field configuration including 3-Dshaped devices. Since these materials can operate at cryogenic temperatures approachingthat of liquid nitrogen (77 K), one can consider as realistic the option to build electricaljoints into the winding cross-section that can be connected, unconnected, and reconnectedin the field. The significance of this capability is that a fusion device can be more easilydisassembled and reassembled in the field to allow for ease of maintenance and change ofcomponents inside the vacuum vessel.

High Temperature Superconducting MaterialsOver the decades, several experimental magnetic confinement fusion devices have beenbuilt with superconducting magnets. As the magnetic field requirements have increased,the superconducting materials in use have evolved from NbTi for relatively low peakfield devices (up to ~ 7 T at 4.5 K), to the present use of Nb3Sn in ITER toroidal field(TF) and central solenoid (CS) magnets operating at peak field of 13 T, at 4.5 K.

As we look to the future, we note that ITER magnets are based on technology developedprimarily in the 1980s and 1990s. If Demo is to follow ITER on the roadmap, it isunrealistic to expect to be using this same technology decades later. A new opportunitythat could significantly change the economic and technical status of superconducting

magnets is to use high temperature superconductors (HTS). Experimental insert coilshave already demonstrated operation in fields > 30 T in small bore solenoid geometries.HTS materials are not yet developed to the level required by the complex and extremelydemanding radiation environment of fusion devices, but they are showing significant andrapid progress at a rate that qualifies them for consideration for use in future powerplants, especially if a robust program of development is begun now.

HTS are a new class of superconductors made from oxide ceramic materials with atransition to the superconducting state at a critical temperature, Tc, much greater than thatof the metallic compounds such as Nb3Sn. Presently, the most developed types of thesematerials are Bi2Sr2Ca2Cu3O10 (bismuth-strontium-calcium-copper-oxide, or BSCCO-2223) with a critical temperature of 108 K, and YBa2Cu3O7 (yttrium-barium-copper-oxide, or YBCO) with a critical temperature of 93 K. The major significance of thesematerials is the critical temperature for both is greater than 77 K, the boiling point ofliquid nitrogen. This then opens up the possibility of operating magnets at temperaturesmuch higher than saturated liquid helium at 4.2 K, thus simplifying the cryogenicrequirements as well as significantly increasing thermodynamic refrigeration efficiency.More importantly for fusion, YBCO has an upper critical magnetic field in excess of 100T at 4.2 K. The expanded operating envelope offered by YBCO is shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 1. Critical surface of magnetic field versus temperature for several types of lowtemperature superconductors and high temperature superconductors. [Courtesyof David Larbalestier, FSU-NHMFL].

Fusion Magnet RequirementsMost practical applications of HTS until now have evolved in the realm of electric powerutility applications and low loss current leads for LTS magnets. The majority of thesedevices use BSCCO-2223. Recently, the long-range outlook for YBCO devices becamevery attractive for a variety of reasons including the potential for much lower productioncosts, long piece lengths, high strength, and excellent performance in magnetic fields atreasonably high temperatures. In the US, there are two companies producing HTS,SuperPower in Albany, NY and American Superconductor Corp. in Devens, MA. Bothcompanies have abandoned production of BSCCO conductors in favor of the much betterperformance and economic value of YBCO conductors. Of the two materials, YBCOseems the better suited for high field magnet applications.

The YBCO conductors can presently only be made by thin film coating processes in tapeform, typically 4-10 mm wide and 0.1-0.2 mm thick. The superconducting layer is only~1 µm thick, with at least half of the cross-section made up of ~50 µm of a high strengthnickel alloy, either Hastelloy™ or nickel-tungsten. The remaining thickness is comprisedof several buffer layers of various compounds that provide the structural texture requiredto align the superconducting crystals to allow a high, longitudinal transport current.Although useful for many power utility applications, this geometry is not ideal for fusionmagnets, where very high current conductors are required. The present state-of-the-artYBCO tapes (4 mm x 0.1 mm) can be made in piece lengths greater than 1000 m, with acritical current of ~280 A at 77 K without applied field giving a figure of merit of ~300kA-m. An advanced fusion magnet would require HTS conductors that can carry on theorder 30 – 70 kA at fields in the 12 – 16 T range, and at an operating temperaturesomewhere between 20-60 K. This can only be achieved if thin tapes can be bundled orcabled into many strand (~1000) cables or flexible conductors as is presently done withround, mulitfilamentary wires of NbTi and Nb3Sn. A focused development program isrequired to develop conductor concepts that are relevant for fusion magnets.

Fusion Magnet ApplicationsProperties and production lengths are now sufficient to use in even low-field fusiondevices, e.g. a spherical tokamak, or with non-planar coils, e.g. helical or stellaratorconfigurations. The ability to operate at relatively high cryogenic temperatures and theuse of relatively simple structural configurations provide very highly stable operationthat, in turn, allows consideration of demountable joints. Demountable high-temperaturesuperconducting coils promise unique advantages for tokamaks and alternateconfigurations. They would enable fusion facilities in which internal components can beremoved and replaced remotely, similar to vacuum vessel sector and blanket moduleremoval. Once such connection methods have been developed, this would provide majoradvantages for the difficult challenges of reliability, availability, maintainability, andinspectability (RAMI) of fusion power plants.

In a working power plant, nuclear heating and radiation damage of the main plasmaconfinement coils are a major concern. The heating issue is significantly mitigated by theuse of HTS conductors. Radiation damage to the insulation is presently the life-limitingfactor. If the radiation life of the insulation system can be increased, for example, by

developing ceramic, or other inorganic insulation systems, the superconducting materialthen becomes the life-limiting factor. The intrinsic physical properties of thesesuperconducting materials make it unfeasible to increase the radiation damage lifetime.

Epoxy resin insulation systems reach the limits of its radiation resistance at the ITERfluence level of 10 MGy (1022 n/m2). Instead, the TF coils of ITER will use a newradiation resistant resin based on cyanate ester. This resin can provide a radiation life ofover 100 MGy, 10-fold the original ITER requirement. For Nb3Sn, the maximum fluence(at the maximum critical current density before a very fast drop off) is about 1023 n/m2

[1]. As in Nb3Sn, the critical current density of YBCO increases with fluence, especiallyat higher fields, allowing a lifetime limit of about 2x1022 n/m2 (Fig. 2) or better [2].However, the more restrictive critical temperature may limit the YBCO neutron fluenceto ~1022 n/m2 (Fig. 3) [3,4].

Superconductors have always been very expensive relative to copper, with HTSconductors much more expensive than LTS conductors. LTS conductors are often pricedon a cost per weight basis. This is not a good way to compare conductors because of therelative differences in absolute performance between them. But typically, one can saythat at 4.2 K the highest performing NbTi wire is in the $200/kg range at a 5 T point, andNb3Sn is in the range of $800-1000/kg at the 12 T point. The cost of HTS conductors isvery difficult to determine because of the rapidly changing manufacturing andperformance gains. Since they are usually priced on a cost-performance basis, anapproximate value to use today is ~$400/kA-m (77 K, self-field only). One can see howit is difficult to make a direct comparison. Roughly speaking though, the relative costsfor HTS are at least 1 order of magnitude higher than LTS wires. Through constantdevelopment this ratio is being reduced, but it is important to consider overall systemcosts, performance, and life-cycle costs, as well as other performance and RAMI issues inorder to choose the best superconductor for the application.

Second generation YBCO high temperature superconductors are under constant and rapidperformance development in industry. The rate of progress is very impressive, yet goodenough even now to begin considering for fusion applications. This is a revolutionarymaterial that requires a focused development effort to provide a realistic vision formaking an economical commercial fusion power plant.

References:[1] X.R. Wang, A.R. Raffray, L. Bromberg, J.H. Schultz, L.P. Ku, J.F. Lyon, S. Malang,

L. Waganer, L. El-Guebaly, and C. Martin,  “ARIES-CS Magnet Conductor andStructure Evaluation,” Fusion Science and Technology 54, No. 3 (2008) 818-837.

[2] René Fuger, Michael Eisterer, and Harald W. Weber, “YBCO Coated Conductors forFusion Magnets,“ IEEE Trans. on Applied Superconductivity 19, No. 3 (2009) 1532-1535.

[3] W.K. Chu, Jia Rui Liu, and Zu Hua Zhang, “Radiation effects of high-Tcsuperconductors,” Nuc. Insts. Methods Phys. Research, B59/60 (1991) 1447-1457.

[4] H. Kupfer, I. Apfelstedt, W. Schauer, R. Flukiger, R. Meier Hirmer, H. Wuhl, and H.Scheurer, “Fast Neutron Irradiation of YBa2Cu3O7,” Z. Physik B. – Condensed Matter69 (1987) 167-171.

Figure 2. Ratio of the critical current density of YBCO before and after fast neutronirradiation to various fluences, and as a function of magnetic field [2].

Figure 3. Ratio of the critical temperature of YBCO before and after fast neutronirradiation to various fluences [3,4].

ARIES-AT

YBCO film

Highlights of US Fusion-Fission Hybrid Workshop, Jeffrey Freidberg,Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

Largely in anticipation of a possible nuclear renaissance there has been an enthusiasticrenewal of interest in the fusion-fission hybrid concept, driven primarily by members ofthe fusion community. A fusion-fission hybrid consists of a neutron producing fusioncore, surrounded by a fission blanket. Hybrids are of interest because of their potential toaddress the main long term sustainability issues related to nuclear power: fuel supply,energy production, and waste management.

As a result of this renewed interest, the US Department of Energy (DOE), withinvolvement of Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (OFES), Office of Nuclear Energy(NE), and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), organized a three dayworkshop in Gaithersburg, Maryland from Sept. 30 – Oct. 2, 2009. There were severalgoals to be achieved. At the highest level, it was recognized that DOE does not currentlysupport any R&D in the area of fusion-fission hybrids. The question to be addressed waswhether or not hybrids offer sufficient promise to motivate DOE to initiate an R&Dprogram in this area. At the next level, the workshop participants were asked to definethe research needs and resources required to move the fusion-fission concept forward.

The answer to the high level question was given in two ways. On the one hand, whenviewed as a standalone concept, the fusion-fission hybrid does indeed offer the promiseof being able to address the sustainability issues associated with conventional nuclearpower. On the other hand, when asked whether these hybrid solutions have the potentialto be more attractive than contemplated pure fission solutions (i.e. fast burners and fastbreeders), there was a general consensus that this question could not be quantitativelyanswered based on the known technical information. That is, pure fission solutions arebased largely on existing technology while hybrid concepts rely on assumed advances intechnology, thereby prohibiting a fair side-by-side comparison.

Another important issue addressed at the workshop was the time scale on which longterm sustainability issues must be solved. There was a wide diversity of opinions and noconsensus was possible. One group, primarily composed of members of the fissioncommunity, argued that the present strategies with respect to waste management (i.e. on-site storage) and fuel supply (i.e. from natural uranium) would suffice for at least 50years, the main short term problem being the economics of light water reactors. Manyfrom the fusion community believed that the problems, particularly waste management,were of a more urgent nature and that we need to address them sooner rather than later.

There was rigorous debate on all the issues before, during, and after the workshop. Basedon this debate the workshop participants developed a set of high level Findings andResearch Needs and a comparable set of Technical Findings and Research Needs. In thecontext of the Executive Summary it is sufficient to focus on the high level issues whichare summarized below.

High Level Findings1. The potential role of fusion-fission hybrids: A fusion-fission hybrid might

potentially contribute to all components of nuclear power – fuel supply, electricityproduction, and waste management.

2. Ideas put forth by hybrid proponents: The idea of the fusion-fission hybrid ismany decades old. Several ideas, both new and revisited, have been investigatedby hybrid proponents. These appear to have attractive features, but requirevarious levels of advances in plasma science and fusion and nuclear technology.a. A waste transmuter based on the leading magnetic fusion and fast burner

reactor technologies: One tokamak-based proposal combines ITER physicsand technology (the leading magnetic fusion technology) with sodium-cooledfast burner reactor technology plus the associated fuelreprocessing/refabrication technologies (the leading related burner reactortechnologies). By building on the most advanced systems in both fusion andfission, this hybrid concept would require the minimal amount of advancedtechnology development. However, the duty factor of ITER is limited to onlya few percent, well below that required for a hybrid system, so significantfusion technology reliability advances would still be required (as for anyfusion concept), and the technology to integrate the two systems (e.g. dealingwith a liquid metal in a magnetic field) would need to be developed. Areprocessing fuel cycle was proposed in which the actinides from LWR spentfuel were burned to greater than 90% in the hybrid.

b. A waste transmuter with a removable fusion core: This is a sphericaltokamak-based concept that utilizes a compact replaceable fusion core whichcan be extracted as a single unit from the fission reactor. The goal is tominimize the electromagnetic and mechanical coupling between the fusionand fission systems. Maintenance and repairs would be simplified byperiodically removing the fusion core to a remote bay and replacing it withanother in the fission reactor. Also to minimize the MHD problems, thefission blanket is located outside the toroidal magnetic field coils. The fuelcycle of interest, which could be used by other hybrid concepts as well, uses afusion-enhanced version of the two-tier process. Actinides are firstreprocessed from spent fuel, then 75%-burned in an intermediate stage lightwater reactor (LWR) using inert matrix fuel (IMF) and finally burned in ahybrid, thereby providing a high support ratio.  However, a new inert matrixfuel would need to be developed and a full systems analysis is required toassess the overall economics including the contributions of the intermediatestage IMF LWRs. Lastly, at least one additional physics development step isrequired before an ITER-equivalent neutron source prototype could be built.

c. Once-through burn-and-bury energy producers: A very deep-burn fuelcycle, based on laser fusion, has been proposed in which nuclear fuel is almostcompletely burned. The initial fuel does not require enrichment. Perhapseven more important the deep burn has the attractive feature that, ifsuccessful, no reprocessing would be required. However, a very deep burnfuel form needs to be developed and nearly the full capabilities of pure fusion

systems would be required. Also, high-power, high rep-rate lasers need to bedeveloped to produce high average power.

d. Efficient LWR fuel breeders: These are concepts in which fissile fuel isproduced in a flowing liquid blanket. The fissile fuel is removed online inorder to suppress its subsequent fission in the hybrid system. An efficient fuelbreeder for LWRs has the advantage of enabling a long term sustainable fleetof LWRs requiring only a relatively few hybrids for fuel production.However, in addition to fusion technology developments, this conceptrequires the development of continuously flowing fuel systems. The use ofhybrids to produce fissile fuel is applicable to both MFE and IFE systems. Itwas studied in great detail during the 1980’s by MFE mirror advocates. Themirror configuration may need to be revisited because of recent progress inrelated plasma performance in the international fusion program.

3. Repositories: Any waste management strategy, using either pure fissiontechnology, or fusion-fission hybrid technology will still require a long termgeological repository for the final remaining long-lived waste.

4. A political problem: Although technologically deployable, long-term solutionsto fuel and waste management may not be needed for half a century, there is ashort term political problem facing the nation. With work on Yucca Mountainhalted, there is no perceived progress on addressing the waste managementproblem on any time scale.

5. Economic comparison of pure fission vs. fusion-fission hybrid solutions:There was general consensus that a hybrid capable of producing a certain amountof fusion power would be noticeably more expensive than an equivalent LWR.Economic comparisons thus have to be made on an overall systems basis. Forexample, what is the overall cost of a group of LWRs plus necessary hybrids vs. acombination of LWRs plus perhaps a larger number of fast reactors with eachsystem producing the same amount of power and reducing the waste to the samelevel?

6. An intermediate step to pure fusion electricity: Advocates suggest that afusion-fission hybrid can be developed on a shorter time scale than for pure fusionelectricity because the required plasma physics and some technologyrequirements are substantially reduced. Some of the panels and also the skepticsargued that some technology may be more complicated in a hybrid because of theintegration of fusion and fission technologies. Perhaps more importantly, thepace of development will be dominated by engineering and technology and notplasma physics. They believe that the time scales for development will becomparable for both.

7. The international fusion-fission hybrid program: There were concernsexpressed by some of the experts at the workshop as to the slow pace ofdevelopment of fusion-fission hybrids in the US program. However, suchconcerns were not shared by our international colleagues. Indeed, severalcountries are considering the option to develop neutron sources as a first steptoward building hybrids. These include the Russian Federation, South Korea, andChina.

8. Proliferation: Hybrids produce significant quantities of fissile materials,generally not retained in individually accountable fuel rods, and hence raisesignificant proliferation concerns

High Level Research NeedsA. Comparison Between Fission-Based and Hybrid SolutionsThe first step that needs to be carried out is a side-by-side systems analysis comparison ofproposed pure fission and fusion-fission hybrid solutions to the problems of wastemanagement, fuel supply, and electricity production. The basic ground rules are thatcomparable assumptions (e.g. material properties, fuel forms, etc.) must be used for eachdesign.

B. Fusion Engineering and TechnologyThere appeared to be widespread consensus that neither pure fusion nor fusion-fissionhybrids could be developed, even in 50 years, unless the fusion engineering andtechnology programs were restarted in OFES. Of particular concern was the need for anexpanded materials research program. Without strong fusion engineering and technologyprograms, the US will continue to be unable to have a defined timetable for a fusionpower plant and thus will fall further and further behind our international colleagues –they will be the leaders and we the followers.

INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES:

US ITER Report, Ned Sauthoff, US ITER Project Office, Oak Ridge NationalLaboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.

The ITER Council recently met for a two-day meeting in Cadarache to address a range ofissues, including consideration of the ITER baseline scope, cost, and schedule. TheScience and Technology Advisory committee had performed a review of the technicalaspects, including consistency between the overall ITER mission and the requirementsand design. The Management Advisory Committee had reviewed cost and schedule.Much effort was dedicated to specifying the conditions for acceptance of a realisticschedule, taking into consideration technical and cost risks. The Council directed theITER Organization to work with the Domestic Agencies to develop two dates: an early-finish date and a late-finish date. The early-finish date should be based on a schedule thatincorporates opportunities for accelerating the schedule, incorporating the probability thatthe risk mitigation approaches that are currently being pursued will be successful, andreflecting a schedule that the Domestic Agencies assess as being realistically achievable.The late-finish date should assume less optimistic assumptions. AchievingDeuterium/Tritium operation as early as realistically possible is a priority.

The Council also selected chairs for key parts of the Council organization:• Evgeny Velikhov, Russian Federation, was elected Chair of the ITER

Council for the next term.

• Yuanxi Wan, China, was appointed Chair of Science and TechnologyAdvisory Committee.

• Gyung Su Lee, Korea, was appointed Chair of Management AdvisoryCommittee.

On the US front, the US Domestic Agency recently awarded contracts to Oxford andLuvata for a total of $33M of superconducting strand. This long-lead material will beused to fabricate the US’s 8% of the Toroidal Field Conductor. Future work in this areawill include procuring other materials, forming the strands into cable, inserting the cableinto the stainless steel conduit and compacting the composite.

Report on IAEA Technical Meetings on “First Generation of FusionPower Plants: Design and Technology” and “Fusion Power PlantSafety”, Guenter Mank and Richard Kamendje, Physics Section, International AtomicEnergy Agency, Vienna, Austria.

The 3rd IAEA Technical Meeting (TM) on “First Generation of Fusion Power Plants:Design and Technology” was held in combination with the 9th IAEA Technical Meetingon “Fusion Power Plant Safety” from 13-17 July 2009 at the IAEA Headquarters inVienna. The agenda of the respective meetings was prepared so as to allow commonpresentations on 15 July and separate presentations on “Fusion Power Plants: Design andTechnology” on 14 July and on “Power Plant Safety” on 16-17 July. July 13 wasdedicated to a discussion session on proposed further activities. The purpose of theseseries of TMs was to assess the progress and outline general guidance andrecommendations on issues related to the design, technology, and safe operation of thefirst generation fusion power plants as well as their environmental and socio-economicimplications. A total of twenty-two oral presentations were given during the combinedTMs. A panel discussion on “How fast commercial fusion can be reality assuming nofunding constraints” took place on 14 July.

First Generation of Fusion Power Plants: Design and TechnologyThe topics covered during this meeting included power plant concepts and systemsanalysis, materials analysis/components design/plasma requirements and non-electricapplications of fusion. Several presentations outlined the research needs, efforts andtechnology choices and discussed results and current challenges in various countries. Inthe presentation “40 Years of Power Plant Studies: Brief Historical Overview and FutureTrends,” L. El-Guebaly (US) summarized the magnetic fusion history, by emphasizingthe US and international activities, and gave a brief look into the future. In the early1950s, there were only four magnetic confinement fusion concepts pursuedinternationally: tokamak, stellarator, mirror, and pinch. The tokamak, stellarator, andpinch concepts have experienced substantial modifications over the past 60 years. Themirror concept was suspended in the US in 1986, while continuing at a very low level inJapan and Russia. During the 1970-2008 period, more than 50 conceptual power plantdesign studies have been conducted in the US, EU, Japan, Russia, and China for bothmagnetic and inertial confinement concepts, covering a wide range of new and old design

approaches: tokamaks, stellarators, spherical tori, field-reversed configurations, reversed-field pinches, spheromaks, tandem mirrors, and laser/light and heavy-ion/Z-pinch driveninertial fusion. Internationally, the D-T fuelled tokamak is regarded as the most viablecandidate for magnetic fusion energy generation. Its program accounts for over 90% ofthe worldwide magnetic fusion effort. The fusion roadmaps take different approachesinternationally, depending on the degree of extrapolation beyond ITER. Several tokamakDemos should be built in the US, EU, Japan, China, Korea, and other countries to cover awide range of near-term and advanced fusion systems. As an example of the presentworldwide status of fusion power plant design and technology, K. Feng (China) outlinedin his talk “Study Activities of DEMO Plant at SWIP” the special need for China todevelop new types of energy sources due to the huge demand of energy. A first step willbe a DEMO reactor to demonstrate the safety, reliability and environmental feasibility offusion power plants, while demonstrating the prospective economic feasibility ofcommercial fusion power plants. The helium-cooled ceramic breeder (HCSB) was chosenunder the conditions of meeting the requirement of the neutronics, thermal-hydraulics andmechanics aspects. The DEMO development strategy and related design and R&Dactivities based on China’s fusion power plant program were presented. A conceptualdesign of an HCSB-DEMO reactor was carried out with major parameters being 2000MW fusion power and a neutron wall loading of 2.6 MW/m2. Lithium orthosilicate(Li4SiO4) pebbles are used as a breeding material and a beryllium binary pebble-bed as aneutron multiplier material. The R&D on the development of functional materials,structural materials and the helium test loop construction were presented. The Chineselow activation ferritic/martensitic steels (CLF-1), the structural materials for the ChineseHCSB-DEMO concept, are currently developing towards industrially compatiblemanufacture. Beryllium and Li4SiO4 pebbles for HCSB-DEMO have been fabricated atthe laboratory level.

Fusion Power Plant SafetyThe main focus of the 9th IAEA Technical Meeting on “Fusion Power Plant Safety” wason:

i) Safety assessment (safety requirements, barriers, accident analysis,environmental impact, safety of normal operation, failure database,verification and validation),

ii) Management strategy and materials characterization (safety of fuel cycle,structural and functional components, waste, tritium, pathway facilities tofusion power plants), and

iii) Socio-economic implications (regulations, emergency response, humanresource development, natural resources, return on investment).

The objective of the safety meeting was to examine in an integrated way all safety andenvironmental aspects anticipated to be relevant to ITER, and to the first power plantprototype.

A. Non-Proliferation and Fission-Fusion HybridsAs summarized by R.J. Goldston (US), nuclear proliferation risks from fusion associatedwith access to weapon-usable materials can be divided into three main categories:

1) Clandestine production of weapon-usable material in an undeclared facility,2) Covert production of such material in a declared and safeguarded facility, and3) Use of a declared facility in a breakout scenario, in which a state begins

production of fissile material without concealing the effort.

The paper addresses each of these categories of risks from fusion. Ultimately, if designedto accommodate appropriate safeguards, fusion reactors would present low proliferationrisk compared to fission. There is not a credible technique for clandestine production ofsignificant quantities of weapons materials using fusion research facilities. Detection ofthe covert use of a declared and safeguarded fusion power plant to produce smallamounts of plutonium or 233U appears to be straightforward. The breakout scenario forfusion is qualitatively different from that for fission, because no weapons material isavailable at the time of breakout. Goldston estimated that the world community wouldhave 1–2 months to respond and prevent the production of weapons materials.

B. Waste ManagementRecycling of materials and clearance (i.e. declassification to non-radioactive material)were presented as the recommended two options, in an integrated approach from the USviewpoint (by L. El-Guebaly et al.) and from the European viewpoint (by B. Kolbasov etal.), for reducing the large amount of fusion waste, while the disposal as low-level wastecould be an alternative route for specific materials and components. Such an approachrequires further refinement, approval of the national authorities, and a dedicated R&Dprogram to address the identified critical issues. This implies a complete consideration ofmost of the parameters involved in such a materials management system, by investigatingand comparing different designs and material compositions, in view of their impact onthe environment, particularly if assigned for geological disposal. Recycling and clearanceare technically feasible for any fusion device employing low-activation materials, usingadvanced radiation-resistant remote handling equipment, and having clearance guidelinesfor slightly radioactive materials. However, such approaches are relatively easy toenvision and apply from a science perspective, but a real challenge from the policy,regulatory, and public acceptance perspectives. In the near future, the US fusiondevelopment program will be set up to accommodate this new recycling/clearancestrategy as proper handling of activated materials is important to the future of fusionenergy. One important and relatively immediate issue affecting public perception offusion is the waste handling and disposition strategy for ITER. The host party, France,has taken responsibility for reception and disposal of the amount of waste produced byITER, an unavoidable fact given the experimental nature of the device.

C. ITER Safety and LicensingN. Taylor (ITER) presented a report on “Key Issues in the Safety and Licensing of ITER”.A preliminary safety report for the ITER facility at Cadarache has been prepared as partof the licensing submission. Following advice received from the nuclear safetyauthorities, the report is now being updated to provide additional information and furthersafety analyses in many areas. In the course of preparation of this report, a number oftechnical issues have been addressed which are of particular importance in the safety

case, in order to provide the required level of justification that the safety provisions takenin the ITER design are adequate. The principal safety functions in ITER are theconfinement of radioactive material (tritium and the products of neutron activation,including in-vessel dust), and protection from exposure to radiation. The confinementfunction is provided by two confinement systems, comprising static barriers and dynamicsystems. For the in-vessel inventory, the vacuum vessel and its extensions provide thefirst barrier. Challenges to this barrier from possible over-pressure in accidents areconsidered, including in-vessel coolant leaks or hydrogen and dust explosions. The ITERapproach is based on multiple provisions to mitigate such events, by pressure relief,limiting hydrogen production and air ingress, and maintaining low temperatures by heatremoval. Other internal hazards such as fire, and external events such as earthquake, arealso taken into account by design provisions.

ConclusionThe informative presentations, paired with fruitful discussions during these meetings,contributed to clarify the need for a forum of an international expert group on FusionPower Plant Designs, which should serve as platform for exchange of expertise anddefinition of R&D priorities.

The content of this newsletter represents the views of the authors and theANS-FED Board and does not constitute an official position of any U.S.

governmental department or international agency.